AMC's Turn

This is a new historical drama on AMC starring Jamie Bell as Abraham Woodhull, a spy during the Revolutionary War.

Did anyone else watch the premiere Sunday night? I watched it Monday since I was too busy watching Game of Thrones live (I like the show; my roommate likes it more; I'm fine with watching it live and saving Turn for the next day; so we watched that on the TV on Sunday).

I was very excited for this show, since I love historical dramas, the time period is intriguing, I was thinking of writing about a similar topic, it's on AMC (with its track record of quality shows), and it stars Jamie Bell (whom I've always liked). Honestly, I was slightly underwhelmed. I enjoyed it, but it seemed a bit lacking in vitality. I've seen a review or two that point out it's the anti-GoT in that it isn't a-murder-a-second. It's also the anti-Mad Men in that Abe, at least, is a good man and not an antihero. And I can tell that the intrigue is just getting underway.

But in spite of the fact that it's getting away from the insanity and moral ickiness of other shows (which I applaud), I wasn't as drawn in as I would have like. It seemed a little unfocused to me. If they're going to go with a thriller, I felt they needed to keep us aware at all times of the tension, which I didn't really feel. There were moments when I wasn't sure what was going on, exactly, until later. For instance, I had no idea what Abe was doing at night with his cabbages until he started talking about selling them quite a bit later--and I'm still not sure whether he just happened upon Caleb or whether Caleb was waiting for him there or whether Abe was directed towards Caleb before he even set out.

I certainly will keep with it. It feels like they're just getting things going, so I think I can be patient for a while. The acting was good, though the accents (or rather, the variation in the accents) was a bit distracting.

Anyone else?

Calla Lily, I was more drawn to Anna than Abe Woodhull (the MC).

I would be fine with British or ambiguous accents for these characters (after all, the idea of America as separate from Britain was just emerging at the time), but it was a little odd to have Abe speak in a Northern English accent (right?) while his father spoke American/Canadian English.

I liked the second episode better. It was pretty strong and had me wondering what would happen next--Robert Rogers runs into our own Abe Woodhull. Good stuff there.

They're still not doing a good job of making it clear who knows what and why they're telling people what they tell them. We can only imply and infer--a little assistance from the writers would be nice. Still, it's worth my time!

Has anyone else been keeping up? I think the show is really picking up speed. I'm really liking Robert Rogers, who seems not to be admirably free of the hang-ups of both Patriots and Redcoats. (I mean, he's a mercenary, so . . . )

I enjoyed the reveal of George Washington, and that Rogers referred to him as Georgie.

I also was very interested in the story of the slaves (Abby and her son) getting underway. I think it might be the most interesting storyline for me so far. This show has some flaws (pacing, for one), but it does NOT shy away from moral ambiguity. Our heroes own slaves, but the British who are "freeing" them are barely less exploitative than the slave owners. It's all quite messy and quite true.

Uh, are we watching the same show? The only British soldier who's portrayed as being at all "bad" is Simcoe, and he's one of the more delightful characters on the show because he clearly doesn't give a crap--he's ruthless.

Mr. Baker is portrayed as a decent guy, as is Hewlett. Robert Rogers is a mercenary s.o.b. but we end up rooting for him because he doesn't have the kind of racial/social hang-ups as some of his contemporaries.

And nor are the Rebels portrayed as saints. There's uncertainty about the cause and a few less-than-honorable actions.

I have issues with the show--the direction is a bit off so that it's hard to tell what exactly a particular character is thinking at any given moment, the pacing is bad, etc.--but they do offer what I consider a pretty even-handed portrayal of events.

*Raises hand* I'm still watching. I think I'm less fond of season two, which is certainly faster-paced but maybe too much so. They're actually taking a lot of liberties with history, afaik. For instance, the painter lady at the opening of the season who is--gasp!--murdered (the real Patience Wright was spoken too sternly once or twice for having Patriot opinions, but she died at an old age after breaking her leg), and the nonsense with Washington and his slave (I highly doubt the very reserved general would have ever spoken that way with a slave, ever). And the stuff with Hewlett being tossed in a stockade to freeze to death (officers were not treated that way!) and Simcoe being stabbed in the gut . . . Keep in mind, these were real people. They seem to have upped the violence rate to make it faster-paced.

BUT, I am enjoying it. I also just rewatched the miniseries John Adams, which is a masterful look at the time period (and later). An interesting contrast.

Honestly, things like costume, weaponry, etc., aren't a biggee for me. My main "accuracy" issues have been mostly about actions being a little "off" for the time period, e.g. the treatment of officers and old Georgey-boy going a little batshit with his slave. It only really bothered me in one episode. In the main, it's pretty decent, historically.